Sonner insisted that Zimmerman is not a racist, pointing out that he and his wife mentored for two black children for free.

Sonner was his original lawyer.

That isn't exactly the same as a "some of my best friends" defense.

There was more, and no it's not "exactly" the same, but yeah it's the same defense with slightly different wording.

I'm driving at the fact that the standard "some of my best friends are X" is generally an unsubstantiated general claim.

He made several specific claims such as mentoring black kids for free, helping out at the local church whose demographic is primarily black, standing up for the black guy who was attacked by cops without cause, and demanding an investigation into the cop...

The general claim I can dismiss and laugh of. But a series of specific claims IMO is more believable.

I put the burden of proof on those making the accusation - sadly, in the court of public opinion, unsupported allegations are presumed to be true, and the burden of producing unassailable evidence to the contrary is upon the accused.

I'm not sure what this is in reference to if you're responding to what I said. I didn't say that Zimmerman is guilty because his brother's a fuckwit, just that his brother is racist and having one friend of every color isn't going to erase that. If you want to dispute that his brother is racist, cool beans, I'm actually not going to argue the point because I think we can both agree it'd be unproductive.

That bit was not supposed to be taken as any kind of specific, that was more back to the general case of having to defend oneself from accusations of racism.

I'm not disputing the brother's racism, just that his brother being racist therefore indicates that he must be racist, just as I dispute that he is racist because he got into an altercation with a black kid.

Most people don't feel that Zimmerman is a racist because he got into an altercation with a black kid, but by the fact that when he saw a black kid walking around in his neighborhood at night his first thought, without any other evidence and I might add was completely WRONG, was that the Black kid had to be on drugs and up to criminal activities. When your first thought upon seeing a black person walking around in your neighborhood is that they have to be a criminal, yeah.. you're a racist asshole.

Considering there was *0* evidence of any wrong doing on Martin's part when Zimmerman called the police the only "crime" that he committed was that of "being black".

Most people don't feel that Zimmerman is a racist because he got into an altercation with a black kid, but by the fact that when he saw a black kid walking around in his neighborhood at night his first thought, without any other evidence and I might add was completely WRONG, was that the Black kid had to be on drugs and up to criminal activities. When your first thought upon seeing a black person walking around in your neighborhood is that they have to be a criminal, yeah.. you're a racist asshole.

Considering there was *0* evidence of any wrong doing on Martin's part when Zimmerman called the police the only "crime" that he committed was that of "being black".

I actually don't know that I would conclusively call this racist - there were troubles with black teenagers breaking into people's homes, and Martin fit that demographic. Had the rash of break-ins been committed by hispanic teenagers, I think Zimmerman would have been just as likely to go after a hispanic teen. I think it quite possible that Zimmerman is an equal-opportunity vigilante, rather than strictly racial vigilantism.

Besides, how do we know Martin wasn't on drugs? I wouldn't be surprised if he were the type to pop a couple ibuprofen now and then.

Nope.. he's the typical libertarian racist type. He's clueless about how he sounds to others. I am not likening him to typical libertarians, with whom I have other issues, but that specific, military loving, 2A boosting, Ron Paul worshiping type.

It is when the only thing that Martin was flagged for was the fact that he was black. There was *0* other evidence that he was involved in any wrong doing that night. ((Because he wasn't.)) At the time that Zimmerman called 911 and made the fatal choice to chase after him.

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Besides, how do we know Martin wasn't on drugs? I wouldn't be surprised if he were the type to pop a couple ibuprofen now and then.

Wow. I wonder if you actually realize how this sounds to others.

It is an obvious joke.Ibuprofen is a fairly harmless and common anti-inflammatory (so common I'm surprised you haven't hear about it).

Yeah, it's a *racist* joke.. you know those black people always on drugs.. wink wink nudge nudge.. maybe this time it was only Ibuprofen. Sorry, it wasn't funny... and the fact that you don't realize it speaks VOLUMES.

Nope.. he's the typical libertarian racist type. He's clueless about how he sounds to others. I am not likening him to typical libertarians, with whom I have other issues, but that specific, military loving, 2A boosting, Ron Paul worshiping type.

When it comes to personal attacks you really just go all the way don't you?

Not racist, not military loving, I suppose I could be considered "2A boosting" (in that I think firearms are useful tools, not evil incarnate with some psychic powers to cause people to kill others), and I'm not a very big fan of Ron Paul.

Yeah, it's a *racist* joke.. you know those black people always on drugs.. wink wink nudge nudge.. maybe this time it was only Ibuprofen. Sorry, it wasn't funny... and the fact that you don't realize it speaks VOLUMES.

It was making light of the drugs accusation, not some secret conspiracy message to brainwash people into thinking 'all black people are on psychoactive substances'.

edit: I'm curious, how exactly do you rectify the whole 'crazy libertarian' thing with the 'suggesting that he might be taking legal drugs implies somehow that he might be on illegal drugs, and therefore that all black people are evil'?

Since you recognize that I am libertarian, and therefore it can be assumed that I have a liberal position on drug use (of any kind - from relatively benign NSAIDs to a psychoactive substance of your choice), do you presume that I am trying some obtuse 'well if he uses legal drugs he must be an evil criminal because he is black' rather than pointing out the absurdity of the 'he might be on drugs' comment in the first place?Even if he was on some kind of psychoactive substance, which I believe should be perfectly legal and thus Martin should have been fully within his rights to be high as a kite that night, how does that justify anything that happened thereafter?

Why do you presume racism instead of a joke about the absurdity of 'he might be on drugs' as an excuse for whatever came after?

Yeah, it's a *racist* joke.. you know those black people always on drugs.. wink wink nudge nudge.. maybe this time it was only Ibuprofen. Sorry, it wasn't funny... and the fact that you don't realize it speaks VOLUMES.

It was making light of the drugs accusation, not some secret conspiracy message to brainwash people into thinking 'all black people are on psychoactive substances'.

By virtue of your outspoken political beliefs on this forum—specifically, the sociopolitical patterns commonly associated with those political beliefs—you aren't in a position of good standing to make jokes like this.

Most people don't feel that Zimmerman is a racist because he got into an altercation with a black kid, but by the fact that when he saw a black kid walking around in his neighborhood at night his first thought, without any other evidence and I might add was completely WRONG, was that the Black kid had to be on drugs and up to criminal activities. When your first thought upon seeing a black person walking around in your neighborhood is that they have to be a criminal, yeah.. you're a racist asshole.

Considering there was *0* evidence of any wrong doing on Martin's part when Zimmerman called the police the only "crime" that he committed was that of "being black".

I actually don't know that I would conclusively call this racist - there were troubles with black teenagers breaking into people's homes, and Martin fit that demographic. Had the rash of break-ins been committed by hispanic teenagers, I think Zimmerman would have been just as likely to go after a hispanic teen. I think it quite possible that Zimmerman is an equal-opportunity vigilante, rather than strictly racial vigilantism.

Besides, how do we know Martin wasn't on drugs? I wouldn't be surprised if he were the type to pop a couple ibuprofen now and then.

I could believe that if the 911 call was an isolated event. However, Zimmerman had a history of calling 911 to report suspicious black people. IIRC, he only called 911 to report black people.

Best to use a winkie and link to the weak accusations of pot use if you're going to joke like that.

By virtue of your outspoken political beliefs on this forum—specifically, the sociopolitical patterns commonly associated with those political beliefs—you aren't in a position of good standing to make jokes like this.

You don't see any irony that, in talking about prejudice, you accuse everyone with libertarian leanings of being racist?

By virtue of your outspoken political beliefs on this forum—specifically, the sociopolitical patterns commonly associated with those political beliefs—you aren't in a position of good standing to make jokes like this.

You don't see any irony that, in talking about prejudice, you accuse everyone with libertarian leanings of being racist?

Generally speaking there is a difference between thinking somebody is automatically a criminal based on the color of their skin which they have no control over and thinking something about somebody based on a system of beliefs they cheerfully embrace.

IE it's not odd for people to think that somebody who claims to be a Southern Baptist, to believe at the same time that women should be lesser to men when it comes to ruling things... because that's part of the Southern Baptist official belief structure, and while not ever SB believes that, when you self ID with a group that has a published set of beliefs, you can't be surprised when people assume you follow them. Or if somebody IDs themselves as a Republican that they probably have a belief structure that follows the official Republican set of beliefs.

Generally speaking there is a difference between thinking somebody is automatically a criminal based on the color of their skin which they have no control over and thinking something about somebody based on a system of beliefs they cheerfully embrace.

IE it's not odd for people to think that somebody who claims to be a Southern Baptist, to believe at the same time that women should be lesser to men when it comes to ruling things... because that's part of the Southern Baptist official belief structure, and while not ever SB believes that, when you self ID with a group that has a published set of beliefs, you can't be surprised when people assume you follow them. Or if somebody IDs themselves as a Republican that they probably have a belief structure that follows the official Republican set of beliefs.

Please explain to me where racism is part of libertarianism's 'official belief structure' (I will leave aside the quibble about having an official codified belief structure for the moment).So because there are some racist libertarians, anyone with libertarian political leanings is therefore a racist?If I pointed out some racist democrats will you accuse all democrats of being racist?If I really wanted to go there, I could godwin this with saying your logic labels all vegetarians as antisemitic.

A member of this group has an attribute unrelated to membership of that group, ergo all members of that group also have said attribute, is prejudicial and not appropriate.

If you are trying to act like the idea that the modern Libertarian movement doesn't have some pretty nasty under currents of racism in it, well... I don't think you are being honest about the movement.

If you are trying to act like the idea that the modern Libertarian movement doesn't have some pretty nasty under currents of racism in it, well... I don't think you are being honest about the movement.

I'm not denying that there are racist libertarians, just as there are racists in any group, but I strongly reject the implication that racism is a core belief of libertarian philosophy.

We aren't even talking about the modern libertarian movement writ large here, but rather the unique subset of mises.org forum sponsored propagandists.

Not being familiar with what goes on in the mises.org forums, I'm not sure how offended I should be, but regardless, please consider this chain of logic:

A unique subset of the mises.org forums are racist, which is tautologically a subset of all mises.org forum goers, which I hope you realize is itself a very tiny subset of all those with libertarian leanings, so therefore everyone with libertarian leanings is racist.

You don't see anything wrong with accusing everyone with libertarian leanings of being racist because there exists a tiny subset thereof within which another subset is racist?

I don't think that everyone with libertarian leanings is racist. I don't even think that everyone who is outright libertarian (big or little) is racist. Heck I don't even necessarily think that all mises.org forum posters are racist; I don't have enough information to say.

But of the group that were recruited to come from there to here in order to bring light to the heathens, I do have enough information to say. If I misremembered your membership in that group, you have my deepest apologies.

However, Zimmerman had a history of calling 911 to report suspicious black people. IIRC, he only called 911 to report black people.

Is that true? If so, wow.

Not exactly true, but sort of true. He called a few times to complain about his neighbor's leaving their garage door open and to complain about people letting their children play in the street after dusk. However, the large majority of his calls and as far as I can tell from multiple websites when it came to reporting "suspected criminal" activity they were all black. Also it seems that he used language that was ill fitting to the situation to make those people seem more criminal and more dangerous even as he admitted that they weren't doing anything at the time of the call.

It does seem that because the neighborhood had been robbed in the past by black people, that he seemed to suspect the worst of black people who happened to be in the neighborhood that he couldn't instantly ID... even, especially, when they were doing nothing wrong... ie Just passing through or hanging out waiting for one of their friends, or stopping to talk to each other, ect ect ect.

Quote:

Many of the calls appear related to his crime-watch volunteer role. The most frequent reason for his calls — nine times — was to report a suspicious person, according to Sanford Police Department records released last week.

They have no records older than 6 months as that's when they destroy them.

A Port Canaveral police sergeant was fired Friday after an internal investigation showed he offered other officers a target resembling Trayvon Martin to use for shooting practice.

Sgt. Ron King, a two-year veteran of the force of about 35 sworn officers, offered the target of a hoodie-wearing Trayvon at the range near Cocoa on April 4, Rosalind Harvey, a port spokeswoman, said Saturday.

...

The Trayvon targets, which feature a bull's eye over his heart, a package of Skittles in his pocket and a beverage can in his right hand, are sold online.

Please explain to me why Americans are so offended at racial profiling.

Americans? I'm not American, but I'm a dark skinned minority where I live. Me, in my Cats, I'm 5'11 1/2", my mid 30s, oftentimes scruffy (I don't shave every day, I hate shaving, I don't need to shave for work), walking around at night even in the drizzle, ripped cargo pants or jeans, a chain smoker, talking on the phone, but the only thing you have going for me is my skin color, and that makes me a suspect. That's what racial profiling is, right? This isn't a made up scenario for me. I am all of the above. So I'm curious why you think it's not offensive to racially profile me. That's essentially the context here, right?

We're not talking about airport security and long lines, but even then in airports, IME, the racial profiling is questionable (and I honestly loved the racial profiling at the airports because man were the special security lines for the 'randomly selected' people super short). A few years ago when I was at the Chicago O'Hare, they took my guitar cases and backpack and rubbed it down to be tested for bomb explosives. At San Francisco International airport, the special security line was that air poofy thing I had to stand inside, but they never tested my guitars or backpack for explosives material. At NYC JKF international terminal last summer there was no extra special line, so I was stuck in a longish security line with those new special crotch revealing x-ray machines - yuck, long security lines.As a smoker, the 16 hour non smoking flights, I try to go till the very last minute to the gate (I get there on time tho), and no US airport has smoking lounges. Backward assed country! WTF? At least in HK international airport they have special smoking rooms with huge ventilation fans attempting to pump out the rancid second hand smoke of 20-30 people smoking in a confined enclosed space before their flights. In the US? NOOOOO.. I have to go all the way outside and smoke, and Chicago or New York, in the winter? I have to wear two gloves because I'm not used to the cold, and lighting a cig with gloves is impossible (I don't have a zippo).Anyway, the special security lines are really pointless other then being a god send to brown skinned smokers, because seriously, that's all it did was make it faster for me to get to the gate. Even if they did find bomb making material on my guitar cases or backpack, wouldn't the x-ray machines catch it wherever it was stored within my guitar or backpack, if I was stupid enough to carry the bomb on me in the first place? And the shoes we have to remove because they get scanned too. So all that extra special security line does is waste tax payers money, and the racial profiling, all it achieved was allow for me to go smoke out side and not worry about a 30 minute line.

Racial profiling is not only offensive, it's plain retarded because of resources and energy wasted for general case scenarios too (look above). But hey, tax day is coming up in the US right? So I'm a-okay with you guys paying to make my security lines short. So go for it! I support America!!! May allah* praise you.

Please explain to me why Americans are so offended at racial profiling.

Because people in a modern society should be beyond deciding that your a criminal based on the color of your skin. I'm also opposed to treating people with bumps on their head as criminals but at one time that was a thing as well.

Please explain to me why Americans are so offended at racial profiling.

Quote:

Sir William Blackstone wrote:All presumptive evidence of felony should be admitted cautiously; for the law holds it better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent party suffer.

Quote:

Benjamin Franklin said:"it is better 100 guilty Persons should escape than that one innocent Person should suffer"

Quote:

John Adams said:"It is more important that innocence should be protected, than it is, that guilt be punished; for guilt and crimes are so frequent in this world, that all of them cannot be punished.... when innocence itself, is brought to the bar and condemned, especially to die, the subject will exclaim, 'it is immaterial to me whether I behave well or ill, for virtue itself is no security.' And if such a sentiment as this were to take hold in the mind of the subject that would be the end of all security whatsoever."

A principle of our freedom is that we err on the side of freedom rather than punishment. When you racially profile you are erring on the side of punishment. When Zimmerman assumed that Martin was a thug up to no good and took actions based on that assumption which was based on nothing but him being a young black man an innocent person was punished, severely, when Martin was killed.

I don't pretend to know what this officers intent was, but it's worth noting that firearms training often involves the use of targets designated as "no shoots".

You'll see targets that are intended to represent bystanders, and also targets meant to portray non-threats in potentially confusing poses like holding a cell-phone in a manner that might be accidentally confused for a weapon. Then of course there are the targets that are intended to represent threats, like an assailant holding a gun or a knife or something. They also make stickers that can be applied to the targets, to change what they are. The guy holding a gun becomes a different target when you stick a badge to his belt, or you could put a weapon in the hand of a target that was originally a non-threat, and so forth.

Basically they're tools to practice and drill decision making and target discrimination.

That being said using a photo of any real-world person, aside from the obvious exception of the models who volunteer to have their photo taken to create these targets, is a really stupid idea. Especially such a well-known and controversial example. Even if his intentions were completely poor, it was still really dumb.

Edit:

Nevermind, I just noticed that it said that the target resembled Martin. I thought he used an actual photo.